John Geddes

John Geddes

John Geddes writes on politics and policy, with occasional reporting and comment on arts and culture.

One thing about new fighter jets—fighter pilots love them

by John Geddes on Friday, July 16, 2010 4:27pm - 0 Comments

The government’s elaborately orchestrated announcement today of its decision to spend $9 billion, plus undisclosed billions more in maintenance costs, to buy 65 fighter jets was heavy on touting the purchase as a boon to Canadian aerospace companies.

Interesting as the matter of defence industry jobs and profits might be, however, the more important question is surely why the Canadian Forces needs Lockheed Martin’s F-35 stealth fighters. After all, they’re not the sort hardware that’s obviously useful for the sorts of jobs—fighting insurgents in Kandahar’s orchards, say, or delivering emergency relief to Haiti—that seem most pressing in the post-cold war era.

So when Defence Minister Peter MacKay was pointedly asked in the news conference this morning for “specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,” I listened carefully for what I thought might be the key answer of the day.

I expected him to sketch some military scenarios. In what sort of likely conflict or anticipated crisis will we deploy expensive fighter jets? Instead, MacKay surprised me by stressing mainly the challenges of recruiting and retaining military pilots. I’ve read that air force pilots leaving for private sector jobs is an issue, but I hadn’t figured that factor would feature so prominently in the minister’s thinking on a massive procurement program.

He touched briefly on Canada’s need to patrol its airspace and participate in NATO missions—he didn’t mention what sort—with allies that are also expected to buy the F-35. But here’s most fully developed part of MacKay’s answer:

“We have very capable pilots currently serving in the Canadian Forces. We want to continue that trend. By the year 2016, 2020, they will be asked to fly 35-, 40-year-old aircraft. So it helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art. That is a very important part of our regeneration of personnel and pilots in particular. So having that platform capability is something that is of great importance to the continued growth of the Canadian Forces and the development of our pilots.”

Bookmark and Share
  • NiceGuy

    Speaking of dinosaurs, when Lord, will you pinko hippies get zapped back to the past? Go do some yoga and get yourself a latte, the adults here are talking.

    • bonneau

      Listen, Little Man (Wilhelm Reich)

  • Peter Langmuir

    Like nuclear submarines, all fighter planes are considered obsolete. There is absolutely no use for them in any current or potential conflict. Air-to-air attack no longer occurs anywhere, and precision air-to-ground attack is now handled by pilotless drones costing only $1 million per unit.

    Watch for the U.S. Defence department to cancel the F35 as soon as they have sold enough to cover their development costs. Then Canada and all the other minor NATO powers will be left servicing immense loans to buy these machines and paying $35,000 per hour to fly them in pointless training exercises.

    Buying obsolete fighter planes to recruit pilots to fly obsolete fighter planes is federal bureaucracy at its nightmarish worst. This mind boggling waste of public money must be opposed by the free press and all aware citizens.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/novagardener novagardener

    Check out this video on the F-35's
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw2tEd7mAsI

  • Darden Cavalcade

    Arctic oil. Russian militarism. Threat to Canada's property, territory, and economic future.

    Double the number of F-35s.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    He touched briefly on Canada’s need to patrol its airspace…

    Ah, yes. We need to remain vigilant against those dangerous Americans and Russians, virtually the only significant forces remotely capable of reaching our airspace.

    So, we're getting sixty-five machines—sixty-five—in order to help guard the second largest national jurisdiction on the planet. Tiny Holland is getting eighty-five. Minuscule Turkey is getting 116 of them.

    I guess we can all sleep better at night knowing that, if ever attacked by elements of the Nigerian Air Force, we'll clean their clocks.

  • Emily

    Made me laugh outright!

    But as Dion said, we aren't going to fight the Russians or the Americans and we're too civilized to fight the Danish.

    So Nigeria it is I guess.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    That 65 number worries me, as I've said elsewhere, and I actually do worry that it's not a robust enough force (though I have to assume a big upsurge in sophisticated, armed UAVs in the future too, so that may well be a part of the calculation) but still, let's be honest here. The Americans aren't going to let an air force capable of shooting down ONE F-35 anywhere near Canada's airspace, and we all know it. That's what NORAD is all about. Even if we didn't buy a single F-35, any serious air force attempting to attack Canada would be met with so many F-35's (not to mention F-22s) they'd choke on them.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/FACLC FACLC

    Just so I'm clear, these planes are an outrageous purchase because…

    1) We're spending too much money on these $250M planes

    2) We aren't buying as many of these $250M planes as we should

    Got it.

  • Diminutive

    Why do you say "minuscule turkey?" They are the second largest NATO nation and border the most unstable region on earth.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    Basically, we're getting 65 aircraft designed for needs we'll rarely face for the price of 200 aircraft designed for needs we face daily.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

    Maybe we should foot some of the bill for defending our own soverignty. What do you think?

    You also seem to have addressed your own concern about 65 being enough BTW. Add in that we get to bid on parts contracts, and this deal doesn't seem too bad at all. Plus, we get a bunch of the possibly the 2nd best fighters in the world, for our airforce to fly around in, while intercepting Russian bombers, and feeling really cool doing it. ; )

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    That may be true.

    I do think we need to have some sort of fighter presence because, while we all know we don't NEED to defend our airspace (NORAD and the U.S.) at the VERY least we need to make a show of contributing to the defense of North American airspace. It may seem silly, but I do think it's important for the Americans to know that we're not just shirking our responsibilities.

    I'm also certainly not one who thinks we don't need fighter/attack aircraft. I want our troops on the ground in far away places to be able to call on CANADIAN pilots to take out fortified targets with air strikes. I think it's important that we have a robust air to ground, and yes, air to air capability. I'm just not sure the F-35 is the right choice.

    At the very least I would have liked to have found out how many Typhoons Eurofighter GmbH would have sold us for $16 billion.

  • MBourque

    Quick question, I'm obviously not an expert, but is there some kind of treaty blocking us from considering su-30 or su-35s? They seem to be engineered for a country with similar geography.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

    Paraphrase fail.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    Got it.

    I suppose congratulations are in order. What you got was virtually the opposite of what I argued, but you at least appear to be aware that the inverse of what I said is illogical. Bravo.

  • NiceGuy

    Do you think the Russians would sell us their most classified plane knowing that we are allies with their military rivals the USA? The minute it arrived on Canadian soil, a team of american military and CIA experts would have it in pieces and on a truck back the US for study.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    I don't think the CIA needs us to get their hands on an advanced Russian plane. Not the Su-30 at any rate.

    Besides, isn't the easier argument against the Su-30 and the Su-35 that neither is even as advanced as the Typhoon?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    Do you think the Russians would sell us their most classified plane knowing that we are allies with their military rivals the USA?

    "Military rivals"? Hey, Rip Van Winkle—it's 2010, not 1990. You obviously slept through your alarm.

    The US and Russia are such deadly rivals that, as Putin slaughtered Chechnians with gleeful abandon, Dubya cheered him on from the peanut gallery. They may be economic and geo-strategic rivals, but they're hardly military rivals

  • Andre

    At around 140M a piece around twice as much. I don't know if it's the VTOL capability, the stealth features, or the electronic warfare gadgetry that makes the F-35 that much more expensive, but like you I do wonder if we really need those features.

    It could be that we just didn't have that much of a choice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II#Ca…

    "As a result of the Canadian government investment in the JSF project, 144 contracts were awarded to Canadian companies, universities, and government facilities. Financially, the contracts are valued at US$490 million for the period 2002 to 2012, with an expected value of US$1.1 billion from current contracts in the period between 2013 and 2023, and a total potential estimated value of Canadian JSF involvement from US$4.8 billion to US$6.8 billion."

    I guess Cannon was tasked with keying in the ROI.

  • Blacktop

    You have toouched upon a very important factor probably overlooked by most. In any kind of fight, on land or at sea, you MUST have air superiority. Proved so many times it gets tiresome. I myself fall into this as I said in a previous post that my preference would be for attack helicopters as they pertain to Afghanistan. But without air superiority as we have in Afghanistan, the chopperse and every other piece of equipment is potential toast. Without air superiority it is a free ride even for Nigeria! And this superiority would undoubtedly include co-operation with the US – or whomever, and common equipment is a maintenace boost.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

    From what I understand, the F-35 will be the best air-to-ground fighter in the world for quite some time to come. The Typhoons have been rejected by some countries (like singapore), due to it's poor(er) air-to-ground capabilities.

    Add in that the F-35 will be the plane of NATO, and I think this cost can be justified, as the price of sitting with the big boys. I wouldn't trade those 65 F-35s in for 150 Typhoons. Plus with more aircraft, comes higher maintanence costs. the more I think about this deal, the more I think it's about right. I was shocked a bit at frist by the cost thou, so I feel where you're coming from.

  • NiceGuy

    Well, the Chechans did a pretty good job of slaughtering Russians too. And did you think the US was going to militarily intervene in Russian territory?? Start WW3 over Chechniya? Yeah, that indicates that the US and Russia are in bed together….

  • NiceGuy

    Well then just buy the Super Hornet…our pilots are already familiar with the plane and the transition would be easy. The Eurofighter ain't gonna happen…we have no stake in it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    They're not in bed together, but they've certainly settled into a pretty friendly modus vivendi and are far from military belligerents. Hell, Dubya even liked what he saw when he gazed into Putin's eyes, as you'll recall. I half expected them to start some heavy petting.

  • NiceGuy

    Dubya? God, will you people give it a rest? The guy hasn't been president for over a year and a half. Last I saw, Obama was having a burger with Medvedev – and a couple of weeks later spies were being exchanged. They ain't friends…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    Spies, eh? Do you really think the CIA doesn't have assets operating in "friendly" Canada?

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    I don't think it's the STOVL. I'm pretty sure this order is for 65 F-35As, which don't have the STOVL capability (but can carry more fuel, and are rated for 9 Gs instead of the B's 7). Presumably the stealth features and more advanced avionics and weaponry is where the extra cost comes in. Still, if it's true that what we're paying is DOUBLE what we'd pay for Typhoons, I have to still wonder if perhaps 130 Typhoons wouldn't have been worth serious consideration!

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    Also, we already have those contracts as a result of ou participation in the JSF development program. We may get MORE contracts as a result of deciding to purchase the F-35 (maybe) but we wouldn't lose the contracts we already have by deciding to go another route.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    I don't think the Super Hornet would fly (ha!) just because it sounds so much like we're not really getting anything new.

    This is part of the reason I'm so frustrated that there wasn't a competitive process for the contract. I actually do think it's entirely possible that the F-35 would have blown away the competition. And, more importantly, that it would have been SEEN to blow away the competition.

    As it is, the way the Tories have handled this makes it look like a none too transparent government trying to force through a gigantic procurement project with too little due diligence.

    Optics matters for Pete's sake. In this case, especially for Pete's sake.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

    I'd prefer 200 or so planes myself, and maybe we'll get them some day. For now, we need a replacement for the 60 or so functioning CF-18s (out of the 100 or so we originally purchased) and the air force seems to think this is the best plane for the job. I'd also like more frigates, more armoured vehicles, and more tanks, more personnel, and those icebreakers we were promised. But we've got budget constraints to deal with.

  • Ariadne

    Do you really believe that Canada have no "friendly" operatives in the US either?

  • bonneau

    What's with the trivial chatter on these posts about fighter jet performance and other irrelevant matters? You’re sounding like a bunch of pseudo-analysts on the Military Channel. You're missing the point here, it's about priorities.

    I say oust these warmongers. They're old-school, military-minded political has-beens, remnants of the 20th century. It's a dinosaur mentality that belongs in the history books, not in today's world. This is not where we should be spending our time, energy and money. We're talking tens of billions of dollars.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    By "minuscule", I just meant that Turkey can fit into Quebec about five times. I was speaking in purely geo-spatial terms.

  • Mike T.

    A good point and it's nice to bring the discussion back to reality. It's a sad fact of modern existance that every country maintains some sort of standing army. But do we have to spend a nine followed by nine more zeroes on a small part of it?

  • Steve T

    You need to keep in mind that the reason why this contract is not being tendered and why Canada is choosing these planes is because they have invested over 150 million dollars into the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program along with other countries since 2002. If they did not end up purchasing these planes that investment is lost. And something tells me that loss of 150 million would have deeper repercussions in the media.

From Macleans